BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I'll continue to disagree with your focus and analysis - as you will
disagree with mine. Therefore - I don't see the positive function of
more posts on this! I said - we should agree-to-disagree, and to
allow each other to examine Peirce in our own way ..and see where it
takes us.
I'll try just this once more:
'Binding time together' is an action.
Mediation - is an action. What else can It be but some process that
is happening' - and that's an action! What else is 'generalizing'
but an action!
A manifestation is an 'event, action or object that embodies or
shows something'. It's an ACTION! And so on. Bringing things into
relation with each other IS an action!
Your reduction of the meaning of words to singular meanings, in my
view, doesn't make our ideas clear but instead, obscures the
pragmatics of Peircean semiosis - which is actually a logical,
rational and clear and powerful perspective and analytic framework.
I disagree that he uses words in such a limited and constrained
sense. If he were to do that, he'd end up talking only to and with
himself.
And I note - that I don't see any movement from all this terminology
of the seminar room into the real actual word. As I said - I want to
see how semiosis actually functions in the real world. I'm not
focused on the intellectual discussions of the seminar room. I know
they appeal to some and of course, each to his own choice. My focus
is what's going on, semiosically, in the real world. You, on the
other hand, enjoy these terminological outlines - so continue to do
so. BUT - please don't insist that I must abide by its constraints.
As others on the list have mentioned - isn't it constructive to see
discussions on Peirce AND [economics, biology, society, physics,
]….Can we enable this to take place? Or will we always be
interrupting the discussion with 'No, you can't use the term 'action'
there. No, you can't refer to an interaction there'.
I gave some biological examples of 3ns as a dynamic learning process
- functioning to develop and adapt habits. How about the social realm?
I posit that it can take 3 generations for a society to change its
normative habits of belief and behaviour - i.e., to change its 3ns.
Why can't we have discussions on analyzing the semiosic development,
maturation and change - of 1ns, 2ns and 3ns among societies? If we
use the 'wrong term' - will it destroy the analysis?
Edwina
On Thu 09/08/18 7:08 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: And Peirce referred to cognition, to Thirdness, as an action.
Synthetic consciousness, mediation, is not a passive consciousness
[which is 1ns] but is active. 1.377/8
No, he did not; at least, certainly not in the cited passage. In
fact, this is a blatantly inaccurate paraphrase of it, so I will
quote it in full.
CSP: It seems, then, that the true categories of consciousness
are: first, feeling, the consciousness which can be included with an
instant of time, passive consciousness of quality, without
recognition or analysis; second, consciousness of an interruption
into the field of consciousness, sense of resistance, of an external
fact, of another something; third, synthetic consciousness, binding
time together, sense of learning, thought. If we accept these [as]
the fundamental elementary modes of consciousness, they afford a
psychological explanation of the three logical conceptions of
quality, relation, and synthesis or mediation. The conception of
quality, which is absolutely simple in itself and yet viewed in its
relations is seen to be full of variety, would arise whenever feeling
or the singular consciousness becomes prominent. The conception of
relation comes from the dual consciousness or sense of action and
reaction. The conception of mediation springs out of the plural
consciousness or sense of learning. (CP 1.377-378; 1887-1888)
Peirce here did not characterize mediation as "active," or even
directly contrast "passive consciousness" (1ns) with "synthetic
consciousness" (3ns) so as to imply that the latter is active. On
the contrary, he also mentioned "consciousness of an interruption"
(2ns), and then went on to call it "dual consciousness or sense of
action and reaction." In other words, it is clearly the latter type
of consciousness (2ns), rather than synthetic consciousness (3ns),
that is properly described as active.
ET: Thirdness is in my understanding of Peirce a dynamic process,
which is to say, an action.
No. For Peirce, anything "dynamic" is associated with 2ns, not 3ns.
This is intrinsic to his analysis of a Sign as having a Dynamic
Object and producing Dynamic Interpretants by means of its actual
Instances.
ET: As such, it mediates, it synthesizes, it generalizes. These
are all actions - powerful actions.
Again, no. For Peirce, mediating, synthesizing, and generalizing
are indeed powerful, but they are not actions. They are
manifestations of 3ns, while actions are always and only
manifestations of 2ns. As Gary R. already pointed out, in Peirce's
terminology , molding reactions is not an action; imparting a quality
to reactions is not an action; and bringing things into relation with
each other is not an action.
CSP: It is to be observed that a sign has its being in the power to
bring about a determination of a Matter to a Form, not in an act of
bringing it about. There are several good arguments to show that this
is the case. Perhaps none of them is more conclusive than the
circumstance that there is no such act. For an act has a Matter as
its subject. It is the union of Matter and Form. But a sign is not
Matter. An act is individual. The sign only exists in replicas. (NEM
4:300; 1904)
Finally, in my opinion--and, I believe, in Peirce's--someone who is
not interested in terminology is evidently not interested in making
our ideas clear. Carefully selecting and defining the terms that we
use to describe what is going on is not merely an academic exercise
for the seminar room, but pragmatically critical for understanding
and discussing what is actually happening in the real world.
CSP: Suffice it to say once more that pragmatism is, in itself ...
merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of hard words and of
abstract concepts. All pragmatists of whatsoever stripe will
cordially assent to that statement. (CP 5.464, EP 2:400; 1907)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
And Peirce referred to cognition, to Thirdness, as an action.
Synthetic consciousness, mediation, is not a passive consciousness
[which is 1ns] but is active. 1.377/8
That is, semiosis as a process does not confine action to dyadic
act-react kinesis between two existential things. Thirdness is in my
understanding of Peirce a dynamic process, which is to say, an
action. As such, it mediates, it synthesizes, it generalizes. These
are all actions - powerful actions.
"Not only will meaning always, more or less, in the long run mould
reactions to itself, but it is only in doing so that its own being
cosists. For this reason I call this element of the phenomenon or
object of thought the element of Thirdness. It is that which is what
it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future"
1.343.
"The third is that which is what it is owing to things between which
it mediates and which it brings into relation to each other" 1.356
This action, of bringing things into mutual relationships is a
frequent description by Peirce, of Thirdness.
Now - to me, such is an action... A plural interaction mediating and
generating the commonalities among separate things
I am not sure if we should continue this discussion, since we both
hold to different views and are probably boring the list.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
